Home Forums Reloading Varmint Rifles 17 Fireball & CFE BLK

Looking to experiment with the 17 fireball and the CFE BLK propellant. Historically I have done well with other propellants like benchmark and 8208. The CFE BLK is just a itch I am looking to scratch. still If someone has already tried this I would love to hear your observations. thanks in advance.

No experience with it in the fireball but it is my first choice for my 17 Hornet.

When I was shooting the .221 a lot, most rifles showed a preference for either Li'L Gun or Reloder 7. Since Li'l Gun works very well in some (not all) .221's, and CFEBLK's burn-rate is somewhere between those two powders, I would expect it to work pretty well. (Like skinner, CFEBLK is my top choice for the .17 Hornet, but in my experience the Hornet is less picky about powders than the .221.)

Looks like Ill be a month out or more before conditions become close to anything preferred to wring things out at the rifle range. The local rifle range options are a mess with snow melt turning things to slush and mud. Our local snow pack has defiantly been above average this season.

Know this propellant is not going to offer top velocities and I am just fine with that. Ill be satisfied with an accurate load & I am hoping the CFE lives up to its name in terms of reduced copper fouling.

Mule Deer you have commented on the observation that there are other propellants that are offered that tend to do very well in terms of reducing copper fouling despite not being marketed in terms of reduced copper fouling as a benefit that said propellants offer. Suppose I am looking forward to putting the CFE BLK to the test.

Suppose Ill give this a go in the 17 HH & 221 Fireball as well.

Thank you for the input all!

I like it in the .17.

Not sure why you might assume less than stellar velocities though.

Like it in the 17 Fireball ??

25 & 30 gr projectiles that I have a good stock of that have ben my favored bullets in the 17 Fireball. Find I am a bit of an odd duck and that is just fine. Think load data for other propellants for the 17 FB has been roughly 200 FPS faster with the 25 & 30 gr bullets.

Oh, okay.


I dont shoot anything other than the 20's in my .17's.


The 20's and BLK are right up there with the fastest.

Still I do not find 200 FPS that great of a penalty for my purposes. What I am wanting to see is the value or lack thereof in terms of the CFE.

Question for Jim and anyone else who cares to weigh in. Are you experiencing longer shot strings without the need for cleaning in order to maintain accuracy? When you are cleaning the bore are you finding the cleaning regimen differs any compared to when using more traditional propellants like Imr 8208, Ramshot Tac & exterminator for example?

Have not been using the CFE type powder for long enough to really notice.


Last time I cleaned my 17 Hornet it had seen 200 or so rounds.


However, I think it was Mule Deer that said quite a few of our favorite powders actually have CFE properties.

Actually, what I said was many newer powders are so clean-burning they leave very little powder fouling, which is pretty abrasive. Many "traditional" spherical powders result in so much powder fouling, it increases copper fouling. Less powder fouling results in less copper fou;ing.
But some factory barrels (thankfully not as many anymore) are rough enough to build up copper-fouling quickly even with clean-burning powders.

Decoppering agents actually REMOVE copper fouling, rather than prevent it. How much they remove depends on several factors, including the roughness of the bore, how much the bullet copper-fouls, and the ratio of the powder charge to the bore.

M
Mule deer, would I be on the right track to expect as good or many even better copper removal experience in the 17 FB over the 17 HH ; If all else were equal meaning the 17 HH bore & the 17 FB bore had the same quality bore conditions/finish? I am basing this on the 17 FB may need 25% or so more of the same CFE propellant to achieve the same velocity. Thus more CFE agent available to get her done.

I would expect so.

usually no better way to get you to respond than by misquoting you!