New imr Enduron effect on copper

[rain164845]

Does anyone have any real world results with the new imr 7977 or 4955 powders with a barrel that coppers?
Thanks!

 

[6milphil]

I've been using IMR 4451 enduron in my savage, still only get 30-40 rounds before I have to clean out the copper.

 

[strut64]

I have used IMR7977 in a new 7 mm mag barrel and it proved superior to H4831 with both 140 gr and 150 gr sierra bullets. Now I am working with a new 25-06. 7977 seems to work well so far. One observation is that there is a black residue /smut left in the barrel after shooting, but very little copper build up on the lands. I have been told that this is the result of the agent tin oxide that inhibits copper residue. Personally I like 7977 so far. so, you still have to clean up after shooting but it is not difficult

 

[clowdis]

I'm using the 4166 in .308 and it does leave a smaller amount of copper compared to Varget. Still not perfect though.

 

[shoot4fun]

If a barrel isn't properly lapped the roughness will attract copper. I would think we all know that. Proper barrel break-in doesn't/can't make up for poorly made barrels.
No amount of anti-copper agent will keep copper out of those type barrels but I would wonder if using Enduron powders will make it easier to remove once it's there. Now, as for my opinion on the "CFE" type formulas I will have to say they are mostly hype. Doesn't make them bad powders though; I've used 4451 with very good results.

 

[Milo 2.0]

You shoot a barrel long enough between cleanings, no powder can stop copper buildup, also, you have just running patches or a brush, a brush will always yield copper.
But yes, those 2 powders do help some on the copper, but as mentioned, if you're not getting a good burn rate, you'll get your share of carbon and powder residue.

 

[Brians356]

Does anyone have any real world results with the new imr 7977 or 4955 powders with a barrel that coppers?
Thanks!

Not those two powders, but IMR Enduron 4451 in an old 1970s M77 round-top in 270 Win, with a lot of fire cracking in the front section of the bore. It shoots very well but coppered up quite a lot. I started using 4451 behind 130-gr BT and no more copper buildup. There's just a faint wash of blue on the patches, and it goes away quickly with Patch-Out. It also doesn't suck that 4451 is listed tops for velocity for this combo.

I've also tried 4166 in 22-250 with similar results.
-

 

[msinc]

If a barrel isn't properly lapped the roughness will attract copper. I would think we all know that. Proper barrel break-in doesn't/can't make up for poorly made barrels.
No amount of anti-copper agent will keep copper out of those type barrels but I would wonder if using Enduron powders will make it easier to remove once it's there. Now, as for my opinion on the "CFE" type formulas I will have to say they are mostly hype. Doesn't make them bad powders though; I've used 4451 with very good results.

I agree and I believe I have seen pretty much the same results...lately I have tried 4451, 4166 and 7977 in different barrels/calibers. When I clean the bores I always start with a brush full of Shooters Choice and follow with a dry patch. This gets most of the carbon and burned powder residue out and I have a look with the scope to see just how bad it's coppered and/or if it appears to be better/worse than the last shooting round. With Enduron powders I am seeing what looks like a layer of copper almost like a big flake in the bore in various spots. This comes out pretty easily compared to how it looks like it should come out {if that makes any sense???} Once all the flaky looking spots are gone, which is usually just a few strokes of a wet Shooters Choice brush I run another dry patch and at this time I see what must have been the conventional copper smear from the first few bullets in a clean bore. It takes a little more doing to get this out, but it is still faster and easier than regular powder loads because there is no where near as much of it.
I have shot some fantastic groups with these powders in several different calibers. One rifle in particular, equipped with an Obermeyer barrel copper fouled pretty badly on one land. It took quite a bit of doing to get it out, but with Enduron it seems to be a lot easier to get whistle clean. This could be because the barrel is getting broken in good and have nothing to do with the use of Enduron powder, but it sure happened at the same time.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

SMP-842 really is extraordinary on copper fouling. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[rain164845]

Thanks, I will let you know once I get to test it myself.

 

[GrocMax]

SMP-842 really is extraordinary on copper fouling. I've never seen anything like it.

Yup. WC/SMP844 as well, both are the original tin dioxide 'CFE's. Load them into the upper pressures they are quite clean.

 

[basshusker]

Not those two powders, but IMR Enduron 4451 in an old 1970s M77 round-top in 270 Win, with a lot of fire cracking in the front section of the bore. It shoots very well but coppered up quite a lot. I started using 4451 behind 130-gr BT and no more copper buildup. There's just a faint wash of blue on the patches, and it goes away quickly with Patch-Out. It also doesn't suck that 4451 is listed tops for velocity for this combo.

I've also tried 4166 in 22-250 with similar results.
-

Out of curiosity, what barrel length on 270?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Yup. WC/SMP844 as well, both are the original tin dioxide 'CFE's. Load them into the upper pressures they are quite clean.

I tried CFE 223 a few years ago when it first came out. I was not impressed. I could not discern less fouling than any other powder.

I was not expecting much from SMP-842 in terms of copper fouling, but came into some mil-surp for a great price, so I tried it. Tremendous on copper. My jaw dropped when I saw how little copper there was in the barrel. No blue/green on the patches for the first time in my life.

 

[Brians356]

Out of curiosity, what barrel length on 270?

Standard 22" Ruger M77 sporter.
-

 

[Brians356]

I tried CFE 223 a few years ago when it first came out. I was not impressed. I could not discern less fouling than any other powder.

Could you detail your CFE test plan?

Several sources have detailed its effectiveness with before/after bore scope photos. It doesn't instantly and completely "disappear" copper. From a scrupulously clean bore, it takes a few rounds to condition the bore. And starting with a pretty copper fouled bore, it takes something like 100 shots to remove existing copper buildup. It also does not guarantee patches will never show any trace of blue from copper, there will still be some trace of copper in the bore, but by all accounts the copper will not build up beyond a "wash" if the load density is reasonably high. I suppose if a bore is rough enough, it's likely CFE cannot keep up with copper depositing.

Please, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious about how you tested it, since most accounts seem to confirm it works.
-

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Could you detail your CFE test plan?

Several sources have detailed its effectiveness with before/after bore scope photos. It doesn't instantly and completely "disappear" copper. From a scrupulously clean bore, it takes a few rounds to condition the bore. And starting with a pretty copper fouled bore, it takes something like 100 shots to remove existing copper buildup. It also does not guarantee patches will never show any trace of blue from copper, there will still be some trace of copper in the bore, but by all accounts the copper will not build up beyond a "wash" if the load density is reasonably high. I suppose if a bore is rough enough, it's likely CFE cannot keep up with copper depositing.

Please, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious about how you tested it, since most accounts seem to confirm it works.
-

I always clean barrels pretty well getting out very nearly all the copper and powder fouling. The rifle was a factory Rem 700 in .223 with about 5000 rounds through it at the time. So it started life kinda rough (as all Rem 700s do), but was pretty well broken in and not a magnet for fouling, but not a custom barrel either.

Bullets were the usual mix of thin jacketed varmint bullets from Hornady and Berger. Loads were medium to hot. I did not intend a scientific test, but cleaning after 100 rounds or so seemed to leave just as much copper in the barrel (as determined by blue/green patches) as the same bullets with Varget.

SMP-842 was a completely different experience. After a long trip to the range (200 rounds), I expected a lot of copper which was typical for this barrel. Found none. Zero. No discernable blue or green on the first patch with copper solvent. Been shooting for 20+ years and that was a first.

One thing Hodgdon doesn't make much about is their changes in formulation lot to lot and over time. My experience with CFE 223 was in 2011. They may have tweaked the formulation to do a better job by now. Dunno. Varget and H4895 were also superior in terms of low velocity spreads and accuracy, so I never tried CFE 223 since it failed to offer an advantage in terms of copper fouling. I only bothered to try SMP-842 because a friend of a friend came into some in a very cost effective manner, and it was too cheap not to try. At well over $20 a pound, I don't think I'm likely to try CFE 223 again.

 

[Brians356]

I always clean barrels pretty well getting out very nearly all the copper and powder fouling. The rifle was a factory Rem 700 in .223 with about 5000 rounds through it at the time. So it started life kinda rough (as all Rem 700s do), but was pretty well broken in and not a magnet for fouling, but not a custom barrel either.

Bullets were the usual mix of thin jacketed varmint bullets from Hornady and Berger. Loads were medium to hot. I did not intend a scientific test, but cleaning after 100 rounds or so seemed to leave just as much copper in the barrel (as determined by blue/green patches) as the same bullets with Varget.

SMP-842 was a completely different experience. After a long trip to the range (200 rounds), I expected a lot of copper which was typical for this barrel. Found none. Zero. No discernable blue or green on the first patch with copper solvent. Been shooting for 20+ years and that was a first.

One thing Hodgdon doesn't make much about is their changes in formulation lot to lot and over time. My experience with CFE 223 was in 2011. They may have tweaked the formulation to do a better job by now. Dunno. Varget and H4895 were also superior in terms of low velocity spreads and accuracy, so I never tried CFE 223 since it failed to offer an advantage in terms of copper fouling. I only bothered to try SMP-842 because a friend of a friend came into some in a very cost effective manner, and it was too cheap not to try. At well over $20 a pound, I don't think I'm likely to try CFE 223 again.

Thanks for those details. Very Interesting. You could be right about early lots of CFE. But I recall reading a report, with bore scope photos, on the then-new CFE 223 by a well-known gun writer (Layne Simpson?) in Hodgdon's 2013 (I think) edition of their annual reloading manual (magazine format). The writer took a 243 with a rough bore and badly copper fouled, ran quite a few (100-200) loads of CFE through it, and purported to show the copper had been removed by the CFE alone.
-

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Thanks for those details. Very Interesting. You could be right about early lots of CFE. But I recall reading a report, with bore scope photos, on the then-new CFE 223 by a well-known gun writer (Layne Simpson?) in Hodgdon's 2013 (I think) edition of their annual reloading manual (magazine format). The writer took a 243 with a rough bore and badly copper fouled, ran quite a few (100-200) loads of CFE through it, and purported to show the copper had been removed by the CFE alone.
-

Interesting. Since I look at the lack of copper fouling as a potential accuracy enhancement and not an end in itself, the lack of accurate loads and larger velocity variations ended my interest in CFE 223. Cleaning a rifle just doesn't take that long, and my results with Varget are simply far superior.

I kinda backed into the SMP-842 thing by accident by coming into bulk powder on the cheap. The first few hundred rounds were loaded without regard for the highest possible accuracy (cheap, unsorted, min prepped LC brass and cheap primers). Not really in need of a replacement for Varget in match loads, but at some point, I need to have a harder look at what this stuff can do in fully prepped Lapua brass, BR primers, match bullets, etc.

I've got some friends and family who never (or almost never) clean their rifles, and this may be just the ticket for improved accuracy with long delays between cleaning.

 

[rain164845]

In the 243, 7977 gives great velocity, but accuracy trumps all. If it gives me all that and also keeps the copper out of this barrel, then it might change the world.

 

[Brians356]

Too late to edit my earlier post, so to clarify:

Dick Metcalf, in an article "How CFE Works" in Hodgdon's 2013 edition of their annual reloading manual (magazine format) described taking two different rifles with copper fouled bores, running 100 rounds of CFE 223 through them, and reported copper had been completely removed from one rifle (a Stag Arms AR in 223 which had previously been conditioned with CFE, then subsequently fired 100 rounds of non-CFE), and essentially all copper removed from the other (an old copper-fouled Howa in 243 which was notoriously difficult to clean copper from.)

Now that's a run-on sentence.
-