CFE 223 and BL-C(2)

[Retvet09]

This has probably been gone over somewhere but I can't seem to find much on the topic. So I'll apologize in advance if it has.

Is it just me or are these two powders so similar that one seems to be a reformulation of the other? That is CFE 223 is BL-C(2) with copper fouling remover added.

The data for both run parallel for too long with very little swings one way or the other from what I can tell.

Interested what you all think?

Thank You!

 

[holstil]

You got me curious. Waiting to hear more.

I've found some really good loads with blc2

 

[Bill K]

It very well could be. Be interesting to see if and what Hodgdon would tell a person, if they were asked.

 

[SSL]

I've noticed that too on the various charts. I can't answer that question, but I do avoid BLC(2) like the plague though I have very good success with CFE223. Many years ago I got a brand new pound of BLC(2) for a .222 Remington 722 factory rifle. Hand weighed starting loads blew primers and jammed the case head into the bolt face and damaged the extractor. I switched to H322 and never had another problem with any load. I realize that I probably got a bad production run (this was before the days of email and mass recalls) and many others have good luck, but I just don't feel like messing with it again.

 

[swd]

Every gun I've tried Ball C in shot great! Never tried CFE223.

 

[McFred]

Recently I've burned a lot of BLC2 in .223 remington with 69SMKs. I get a rather full case and about 3100fps without signs of overpressure (Federal primer pockets are still tight on brass with 13 reloads on them). I also push 50s for popping cans and Pdogs at nearly 3500fps. Other than it having a lot of carbon buildup in muzzle devices it has served me well with plenty of 200 yard groups between .3 and .6 MOA and decent SDs. In my 24" SS Wilson 8 twist I have never had copper fouling issues (one patch of Wipe Out removes all traces of copper) and have never agonized over cleaning the barrel between matches. I'm guessing the cleaning interval is approx. 300-400 rounds. It's usually available, compared to Varget and 8208XBR, and at around $160/8lb it's an easy choice for me.

It is temperature sensitive and there is some lot-to-lot variation, but a chrony has told me everything I need to know about that.

I bought a pound of CFE223 a couple years ago in excess of $30 from a LGS and never got it to shoot in the rifle I tried it in. However, I never got much of anything to work in that particular rifle. I have not tested it as a replacement for BLC2.

 

[Bc'z]

Currently working with blc2 in a 6x45 pushing 68gr barts , got a .5gr charge window with good accuracy. Need to fine tune seating depth.

 

[Tommie]

Every burn rate chart I have shows CFE223 being considerably slower than BLC-2.

 

[dc.fireman]

Every burn rate chart I have shows CFE223 being considerably slower than BLC-2.

Mine too; I wonder if perhaps the de-coppering agent retards burn rate?

 

[chop house]

Currently working with blc2 in a 6x45 pushing 68gr barts , got a .5gr charge window with good accuracy. Need to fine tune seating depth.

very timely info for my current project.... thanks...

 

[Tommie]

Mine too; I wonder if perhaps the de-coppering agent retards burn rate?

Accepting the assumption that CFE223 is simply the old BLC-2 plus pixie dust; if the copper fouling agent changes burn rate then charge weights (and load data) between the two can’t be identical.

 

[SSL]

Relationship in loading data runs the gamut as to maximum loads between the two. Not fair to merely compare velocity figures since CFE223 nearly always provides higher maximum velocities, but the times when there are wide discrepancies in maximum load weights can be startling.

Random examples: .17 Remington - CFE223 - 25 grain bullet - Max 26.0 grains
BLC(2) - 25 grain bullet - Max 24 grains

.223 Remington - CFE223 - 50 grain bullet - Max 28.5 grains
BLC(2) - 50 grain bullet - Max 28.0 grains

.22/250 Remington - CFE223 - 55 grain bullet - Max 39.2 grains
BLC(2) - 55 grain bullet - Max 34.0 grains

.243 Winchester - CFE223 - 75 grain bullet - Max 37.7 grains
BLC(2) - 75 grain bullet - Max 37.5 grains

 

[dc.fireman]

Accepting the assumption that CFE223 is simply the old BLC-2 plus pixie dust; if the copper fouling agent changes burn rate then charge weights (and load data) between the two can’t be identical.

Agreed.

 

[sbhooper]

I have not tried Blc in a long time, but my go-to in my .308, is CFE and 150 Hornadys, at over 2900 fps. I really like that powder and the copper remover does work. BLC was slow for me, in loads I tried in a .223 years ago.

 

[Laurie]

There are so many differences between the pair that I'm very sure that CFE isn't just BL-C(2) with decoppering agent added changing its characteristics a little.

The old BL-C(2) goes back to WW2 and was a development of very early ball type powders pioneered by the Olin Corporation's Winchester-Western outfit in the 1930s. W-W supplied the US-UK Lend-Lease Commission with millions of 0.303 MkVIIz ball cartridges in WW2 under contract and loaded with this powder or its immediate predecessor. When the war finished, there were still large stocks of cartridges on hand in the US which were initially stored then demilled in 1947 and the components sold or disposed of. B E Hodgdon bought the powder, his first ball type (only he couldn't use that word as it was trademarked by Olin/W-W.) Some sources say Hodgdon demilled the cartridges; others that US Ordnance workers did and sold Hodgdon the powder alone, no matter either way. This was Ball Lot C abbreviated to BL-C, the 'C' for cooler as it believed it burned cooler than Hodgdon's Dupont surplus extruded powders such as IMR-4895. It went on sale in 1950.

This powder was popular and supplies soon ran out. Hodgdon went to Olin and persuaded them to supply a replacement, this being a slightly modified version of its WC846 grade used in the then new 7.62 Nato 150gn M180 milspec round and no doubt some 308 Win W-W sporting ammunition too. W-W removed the US Army mandated flash suppressant from WC846 and sold this modified grade to Hodgdon who marketed it as Hodgdon BL-C(2), ie Ball Lot C #2. It was said to be to all intents and purposes a like for like replacement for the original surplus grade. AFAIK, the current version of this propellant is little, or maybe not at all, changed from the mid 1950s original.

Ball type powders have come on a long way over the last 60 or 70 years. Military users have become increasingly demanding on both carbon and metallic fouling, temperature stability and so on. There is some stiff competition for ammunition company orders and Eurenco's P B Clermont facility in Belgium which bought ball powder manufacturing technology rights from the Olin Corp a long time ago has spent a fortune on R&D and process plant improvements to compete with the US supplier, and often very successfully too. (P B Clermont makes Ramshot and at least some 'Accurate' grades for the handloading markets.)

Ball type powders were traditionally 'dirty burners' because 10-12% of the ingredients were non-combustible. Modern variants have far less and are therefore cleaner. Put simply CFE is a 21st century product designed in its bulk grade form to do the old WC846 job in US and other military forces' smallarms cartridges, primarily 5.56 and 7.62 standard ball loadings and to keep the General Dynamics Corp's St. Marks Powder Co plant in Florida competitive in a cutthroat global marketplace. GD St. Marks has been no slouch in R&D effort or in production plant improvements to put it mildly.

One test or factor alone tells you that the two powders are very different grades insofar as their ingredients go. As of 01.06.2018, the EU instituted a new regulatory regime for propellants and Hodgdon BL-C(2) is one of many older Hodgdon / GD St. Marks ball types that were banned for import into the bloc as being unsatisfactory in a health & safety sense in that their recipes contained chemicals believed to be carcinogenic or seriously polluting. CFE223 (and CFE BLK plus L'il Gun) are deemed to be 'clean' (or 'green' depending on your bent and terminology) grades that have been re certified under the new regime and are still available to us in the UK.

 

[chop house]

W-W removed the US Army mandated flash suppressant from WC846 and sold this modified grade to Hodgdon who marketed it as Hodgdon BL-C(2), ie Ball Lot C #2

laurie, you are an encyclopedia. i looked up some of your published works elsewhere: always meant to get back here and follow your posts.

while on the subject do chemical flash suppressants typically alter burn rates, temps, and energies?

 

[Laurie]

while on the subject do chemical flash suppressants typically alter burn rates, temps, and energies?

I can't answer that question with any professional knowledge or expertise I'm afraid. I feel they must have at least some effect, maybe not directly on performance, but possibly indirectly on storage life and other characteristics.