Grendel powder that falls between H-335 and CFE

[eggman918]

Thanks to the Hoard I have done my first work up of a load that my rifle likes for the Nosler 123gr. CC HPBT, I an now trying a second with the 100gr.Nosler.
I have H-335 and CFE that I can acquire easily locally the 123's liked CFE not so much the 335, with the 100gr. the difference between the 2 powders seemed to be great and I was thinking I need to find a powder that splits the difference... What should I try next that is between CFE and 335 for 100/123 bullet weights?
With the 123's 26.8 of CFE at 2.255 COA with BR-4's and 5th firing Hornady brass netted me 1.75" groups at 200 yards which is best I have seen yet for this rifle, the 123's workup went smoothly for a first go-round that is die to the info from Y'All. I have only done a speed reading for the 100's with the MagnetoSpeed so no groupings yet but it looks like the slower sets were tightest which is what I found with the 123" as well not sure if this is a trend yet and time will tell. I will do sets for grouping on Monday to learn more but So Far So Good.

[biodsl]

If you can ever find IMR 8208 XBR you should give it a try. Very good for the 107/108 class bullets.

[LRRPF52]

Between H335 and CFE223? That’s pretty much the entire spectrum of Grendel powers, with only Benchmark and a few of the faster ones lying outside of it on the fast end, and maybe LeveRevolution and ALLIANT POWER PRO 2000-MR on the slow-end.

Here’s a burn rate chart showing that full range of powders:



Common ones for Grendel that jump out in that range have been:

X-Terminator
8208XBR
AR Comp
TAC
Power Pro Varmint
AA2520
W748
BL-C(2)

These are all 6.5 Grendel staple powders that are also staples for .223 Rem and .308 Win.

6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks have hundreds of tested combinations in them for your reference.

[eggman918]

I have that chart and the fact that I have one at each end of the spectrum is why I was seeking guidance, I have been buying powder locally and my options are limited so need to shop online for it.
I have the books and have been researching there, I guess I was hoping to get a "go to" choice from the Hoard...

[lazyengineer]

TAC. Try TAC.

[Koda]

Ive been wanting to try IMR 8208 XBR but its been unobtanium.

Ive been using A2520 which is available and getting 2800fps with a 97gn bullet, not too bad and I think is between your two powders in burn rate. I did try CFE223 but the A2520 gave slightly faster velocities

[Konocti's Wigwam]

6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks have hundreds of tested combinations in them for your reference.

I have no affiliation with LRRPF52, just a satisfied customer. If you don't have those reloading manuals, they're very helpful for the 6.5 Grendel.

These are well worth picking up.

There are tons are powders and projectiles for 6.5 Grendel. Seems like a very forgiving round.

KW

[37L1]

You might look a little beyond CFE and try Leverevolution.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Between H335 and CFE223? That’s pretty much the entire spectrum of Grendel powers, with only Benchmark and a few of the faster ones lying outside of it on the fast end, and maybe LeveRevolution and ALLIANT POWER PRO 2000-MR on the slow-end.

I hope this isn't a stupid question, but something I wasn't sure of. On that chart, Accurate 1680 and CFEBLK are just 2 positions away from each other. Is it safe to assume that both powders will be close to each other in pressure??? Of course I will test it, but I was curious if that was safe to use a powder that is 2 positions away? 8.6 blackout uses Accurate 1680 and I'm swapping it out with CFEBLK to test with.

Interesting how far away on that chart CFE223 and CFEBLK are...just sayin'...I see a lot of powders spread out over half that chart on powders that are used to load 6.5 Grendel. Is it surprising that the OP was looking at CFE223 and H335 ???

KW

[eggman918]

I started with 335 because it was what the local shop had been using in the reloads they were doing for me as well as the fact that is is always in stock in town, I started by copying that load to get the feel for things.
CFE is also always available so that was the second one I tried, when I first looked at LR's chart and saw that they were pretty far apart I decided to get some opinions as where to go next. I'm sure I'd get into trouble IF I were to just make assumptions by looking at that chart and the Wife has been a good sport with the whole reloading thing but no need to just start winging it when I have Y'All's experience to glean.
On a side note after making a gauge that registers at a point on the bullet that is .259" I found my col's were allover the place so I fixed that and now the 7 sets of 5 I have for each powder are all +/- .001 with most +/- .0005 so I'm excited to see what that does for things.
I have another question I'm thinking that burn rate will affect things differently with differing barrel lengths and gas port location as well as bullet weight/bearing surface is that a correct assumption?

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I have another question I'm thinking that burn rate will affect things differently with differing barrel lengths and gas port location as well as bullet weight/bearing surface is that a correct assumption?

Yes, it does, as well as the size of the gas port.

[Harpoon1]

I hope this isn't a stupid question, but something I wasn't sure of. On that chart, Accurate 1680 and CFEBLK are just 2 positions away from each other. Is it safe to assume that both powders will be close to each other in pressure??? Of course I will test it, but I was curious if that was safe to use a powder that is 2 positions away? 8.6 blackout uses Accurate 1680 and I'm swapping it out with CFEBLK to test with.

Interesting how far away on that chart CFE223 and CFEBLK are...just sayin'...I see a lot of powders spread out over half that chart on powders that are used to load 6.5 Grendel. Is it surprising that the OP was looking at CFE223 and H335 ???

KW

I use A1680 and CFE BLK for AK 47 ammo/ 7.62x39. CFE BLK gives substantially faster FPS with book loads! IMO the burn rate is too fast for the Grendel. It may work with some lightweight projectiles but would be suboptimal compared to the other options available.

[LRRPF52]

I hope this isn't a stupid question, but something I wasn't sure of. On that chart, Accurate 1680 and CFEBLK are just 2 positions away from each other. Is it safe to assume that both powders will be close to each other in pressure??? Of course I will test it, but I was curious if that was safe to use a powder that is 2 positions away? 8.6 blackout uses Accurate 1680 and I'm swapping it out with CFEBLK to test with.

Interesting how far away on that chart CFE223 and CFEBLK are...just sayin'...I see a lot of powders spread out over half that chart on powders that are used to load 6.5 Grendel. Is it surprising that the OP was looking at CFE223 and H335 ???

KW

CFE BLK and CFE223 are totally different powders with a copper fouling remover additive.

CFE BLK is way fast for cartridges that have more bore volume and less case diameter relative to the bore. Hodgdon’s was targeting the 300 Blackout handloader with that powder, as an example.

AA1680 is popular in 6.8 SPC and 7.62x39, but is not appropriate for Grendel due to burn rate.

When they released the CFE BLK, I was immediately worried that some people will mistake BLK for CFE 223, which is why I take the extra effort to write out the full powder nomenclature any time I discuss them, or to the extent that they are distinguishable from others.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I'm not using the CFEBLK for 6.5 Grendel, I'm using H335, 8208XBR or Varget.

I'm using Accurate 1680 and CFEBLK for both 300 blackout and 8.6 blackout.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

@LRRPF52 I was more asking a general question on substituting powder and if you pick a powder that is next to each other, or 2 slots away, in theory doesn't that mean they have almost the same burn rate?

About 6 months ago it was almost impossible to get 1680, so I bought CFEBLK as I could get it and it was only 2 slots away on the burn rate chart. I bought it with the intention to use as a 1680 replacement. Does that make sense, or would you use something other than burn rate to select powders?

[grayfox]

if it's "1 or 2 slots away" all that means is it is 1 or 2 slots away. There's more to powder than just the burn rate. Unless you have proven pressure/MV tools to measure both inside and outside of the barrel you are better off sticking with 1) listed powders by the powder mfr or bullet maker, or b) consensus powders that have some appreciable, sound history among experienced reloaders. I say this latter, b), because in the grendel, for example, Ar Comp works well for 120 class bullets but it is not listed by Hodgdon/Alliant etc or bullet makers... it does have multiple users and some consistent load data history/ranges however.

AND starting low and working up, for grendel, in 0.2 or 0.3 gr increments -- otherwise you can miss seeing the node you're looking for. Pressure signs in grendel mean you are already way past the 52,000 psi saami list pressure.

In 300 or 8.6 Blackout these caveats are just as applicable.

[LRRPF52]

@LRRPF52 I was more asking a general question on substituting powder and if you pick a powder that is next to each other, or 2 slots away, in theory doesn't that mean they have almost the same burn rate?

About 6 months ago it was almost impossible to get 1680, so I bought CFEBLK as I could get it and it was only 2 slots away on the burn rate chart. I bought it with the intention to use as a 1680 replacement. Does that make sense, or would you use something other than burn rate to select powders?

I personally always check all the published data for a cartridge from as many sources as I can find before buying a powder.

If there isn’t any pressure-tested data for it and the bullet I’m using, then I don’t use it.

[muvef]

Lot's of good advice above. For Accuracy, try 8208. It's slow, but it is accurate.

For speed, PPV is my choice.

TAC can give you a little of both speed and accuracy.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I personally always check all the published data for a cartridge from as many sources as I can find before buying a powder.

If there isn’t any pressure-tested data for it and the bullet I’m using, then I don’t use it.

Indeed, I have done all of that on my loads as well. Your original point was good, that the spread of powders is really across half the chart for any given cartridge.

In the case of the 6.5 Grendel, there's a mismatch on load data, where the Hornady app shows using H335 with 26.4 as the max load, but on the Hodgdon site and info from the Barnes site show 28.0 as being the max for a 120 grain TTSX.

I think your books have as good of load data as any other source. As I've said before, it's too bad I don't have a collection of information like that for other cartridges.

EDIT: While I was posting I received my package from UPS, and the gas port on the 12" 6.5 Grendel match barrel w/1:8 twist is about .075" Nice looking barrel I might add!