Why such a huge difference for cast vs fmj.

[flyingmonkey35]

45 ACP
Cast

Case:*Winchester

Twist:*1:16"

Primer:*Federal 150, Large Pistol

Barrel Length:*5"

Trim Length:*.893"

BULLET WEIGHT200 GR. CAST LSWC

ManufacturerHodgdon

PowderCFE Pistol

Bullet Diameter.451"

C.O.L.1.225"

Starting Load

Grains7.4

Velocity (ft/s)1,042

Pressure15,000 PSI

Maximum Load

Grains8.2

Velocity (ft/s)1,142

Pressure19,600 PSI


FMJ
BULLET WEIGHT200 GR. SPR JHP

ManufacturerHodgdon

PowderCFE Pistol

Bullet Diameter.451"

C.O.L.1.155"

Starting Load

Grains6.3

Velocity (ft/s)877

Pressure14,900 PSI

Maximum Load

Grains7.2

Velocity (ft/s)1,010

Pressure20,200 PSI

[MT Chambers]

Sumpin wrong here, i haven't seen any 200gr. swc bullets going over 1100fps, cast or otherwise in the .45 Auto......that's not to say it can't be done, just be careful........ Starting loads don't usually start at over 1000fps.....are you using Ackley's old chrono??

[Tatume]

My guess is that you're asking about the charge weights. Jacketed bullets generate more pressure for a given charge, so a slight reduction in powder is in order. Note that the pressure is about the same for the two, and as usual, the cast load is a bit faster. This is typical of cast vs. jacketed comparisons.

Take care, Tom

[flyingmonkey35]

I have been getting my reloading data from

http://www.hodgdon.com/basic-manual-inquiry.html

i think these are backwards, if you ask me, mabey ill jump ship and grab my book off the shelf and double check with a known fact.

[osteodoc08]

Typical of cast to need more powder to reach similar velocity.

The powder in question is the new CFE Pistol which has been showing some impressive velocities for its application. Still haven't been able to locate any to try myself.

[flyingmonkey35]

i tried the starting load of 7.4, and it packs a punch. feels to hot. i think ill drop it down to 6.3ish and work my way up.

i found it to be a bit smokey. This stuff is supposed to clean fouling out of your barrel. i was shooting cast Powder Coated bullets, barrel was Clean after a few swabs. couldn't be happier.
http://www.hodgdon.com/new_prod.html

New for 2014, this excellent spherical pistol propellant utilizes our CFE formula, Copper Fouling Eraser, virtually eliminating copper fouling, plus providing top velocities with clean burning and minimal muzzle flash. For competitive shooters and hand loaders seeking the perfect powder for target or self-defense loads, CFE Pistol provides optimum performance in cartridges like the 9mm Luger, 38 Super, 40 S&W, the venerable 45 ACP and many more.

[freebullet]

Without jumping into all the numbers you posted I will say that col can make a big difference.

[singleshot]

+1 on COL!!! I noticed that right off!

[Bullwolf]

CAST BULLET WEIGHT 200 GR. CAST LSWC
C.O.L.1.225"
Starting Load
Grains7.4
Velocity (ft/s)1,042
Pressure15,000 PSI

FMJ BULLET WEIGHT 200 GR. SPR JHP
C.O.L.1.155"
Starting Load
Grains6.3
Velocity (ft/s)877
Pressure14,900 PSI


The Cartridge Overall Length has a bit to do with the load variance as well. The data I have seen for CFE has also been a bit on the warm side.

From the 2014 Hodgdon Basic Reloading Manual page 21
(The paper loading pamphlet handed out with CFE Powders)

Look at the pressures and velocities compared to the other powder selections.

It either really likes to run at max, or they are hoping to attract people to the new powder by showing big velocity numbers. I am not very impressed with CFE pistol so far, but when it's all that is available... Needs must when the devil drives.


- Bullwolf

[Whitespider]

Look at the pressures and velocities compared to the other powder selections.

Take another look...
Pressures for CFE Pistol are shown in PSI, all the others are shown in CUP... I'm unaware of any reliable conversion formula. It's not possible to compare the pressure:velocity ratio between loads unless both pressure and velocity are measured by the same scale. It like comparing two engines by looking at the horsepower of one and foot-pounds torque of the other.

[Tatume]

Unlike CUP and PSI, horsepower is easily calculated from torque. One horsepower is 550 ft. lb. per second, or about 746 Watts.

[Finster101]

Take another look at that chart. It has JSWC on it not LSWC. Big difference.

[high standard 40]

+1 on COL!!! I noticed that right off!

That could only be considered if you are comparing two different loads using the "same bullet" in which case seating deeper will affect powder capacity and thus pressure. One can not flatly state that the different seating depths noted would cause the pressure difference. You need to compare the two bullet designs and see how the OAL affects the location of the base of the seated bullet. One bullet could have a long skinny nose and the other a short fat nose......two different animals.

[Bullwolf]

Take another look...
Pressures for CFE Pistol are shown in PSI, all the others are shown in CUP... I'm unaware of any reliable conversion formula. It's not possible to compare the pressure:velocity ratio between loads unless both pressure and velocity are measured by the same scale. It like comparing two engines by looking at the horsepower of one and foot-pounds torque of the other.

I also noticed the C.U.P. and PSI measurement differences when I took the picture. Generally that means the other loads are still worked up with older CUP data, and the newer data measured with PSI is more accurate (peak and duration for example) as PSI measurements can tell more of the picture than just a crushed copper pellet.

Sadly since I don't have access to any kind of pressure trace measuring equipment, I can only measure velocities with my chronograph to come up with comparatively safe pressure loads.


I bet a call to Hodgdon would explain more than our guesses will. Often they decide to go with a certain load because of accuracy reasons, or it just performed better (perhaps cleaner) at that loading density, or for some other more mysterious reason.

In my experience it's exceptionally rare to get increased velocity without a consequential increase in pressure, unless you have moved to a much slower burning powder for that application.

After looking more at Hodgdon's velocity numbers, I still think that the CFE Pistol loads are a bit on the high side of things, and wish I understood why better.

Look at the charge densities, and Hodgdon's powder burn rate chart.

http://www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html

A cut and paste section from Hodgdon's relative burn rate chart:

<snip>

31 Alliant Unique
32 Hodgdon UNIVERSAL
33 Alliant Power Pistol
34 VihtaVuori N330
35 Alliant Herco
36 Winchester WSF
37 VihtaVuori
38 IMR, Co Hi-Skor 800-X
39 IMR, Co SR 4756
40 Ramshot True Blue
41 Accurate Arms No. 5
42 Hodgdon HS-6 115
43 Winchester AutoComp
44 Hodgdon CFE Pistol
45 Ramshot Silhouette
46 VihtaVuori 3N37
47 VihtaVuori N350
48 Hodgdon HS-7 121
49 VihtaVuori 3N38
50 Alliant Blue Dot
51 Accurate Arms No. 7
52 Alliant Pro Reach
53 Hodgdon LONGSHOT
54 Alliant 410 127
55 Alliant 2400 128
56 Ramshot Enforcer
57 Accurate Arms No. 9
58 Accurate Arms 4100
59 Alliant Steel

<snip>

Hodgdon CFE Pistol at #44 doesn't seem to be all that slow of a powder. I cant see it doing anything that couldn't already be done with AA #5, #7, #9 or even Unique, Herco, Blue Dot or 2400 for that matter.

I just don't shoot enough J-word ammo to benefit from any copper fouling removal properties it may have. CFE Pistol's main attraction for me was that it was actually available at a time when few or no other pistol powders were to be found.

I'm somewhat hesitant of buying a pig in a poke. My experience with the powder did not leave me feeling that this was the next best thing for use in high velocity loads. But to be fair I didn't really push things that hard, I tend to err on the side of caution and I just wanted some moderate loads to practice with.

I feel like they intentionally marketed this powder at people who were looking to make a certain power factor with pistols though.

Remember I'm not an expert, nor do I play one on TV. For a more conclusive answer try contacting a Hodgdon tech via phone or email.





- Bullwolf

[Whitespider]

Maybe the added velocity has something to do with the "CFE" technology??
I know they call it "Copper Fouling Eliminator", but it can't (in my mind) remove copper fouling, it can only protect against it. That would mean some sort'a coating would have to be deposited in the barrel... something that would work sort'a like moly coating does. My experience with moly-coated copper jacketed bullets in several rifles (using the chronograph and case head expansion as the gauge) has been higher velocities at lower, or equal pressure. Basically, I get higher velocities with lower pressure at the same powder charge weights... and I'm able to use a higher charge weight to obtain the same (apparent) pressure, with an even higher velocity gain. In a couple loads I gained over 200 FPS without seeing any (apparent) pressure increase... but with a powder charge increase.

Just a thought... but in my mind it makes sense. How else could they "eliminate" copper fouling without reducing friction in some way??
Reducing bullet-to-barrel friction (and/or boolit-to-barrel friction) would automatically mean higher velocities at like pressures. And likely more powder needed to obtain like pressure if it didn't have the "CFE" technology... thereby increasing velocity even more.

But hey... I'm just a country hick with a keyboard...