CFE BLK vs AA1680

Balthazar · Jan 9, 2023

1st post but have been a follower [lurker congers up negative images] of the this forum for some time, mainly due to the helpful info everyone
so willingly dispenses, the collegiality amongst the users and the scarcity of pi$$ing contests so often displayed on other sites.
Just came into possession of a BLR 450 Marlin. Because brass seems to be unobtanium, I'll probably end up paying exorbitant $$ for Hornady's
one loading, just to get the brass to reload. Looking over the on-line Mfgs' websites for info on reloading the 450 Marlin, a few powders stick out
as a good starting point. Both 4198s, Hodg 322 and AA1680, to name a few. In looking over the burnrate chart, Hodg CFE BLK is very close to
AA1680. I have used CFE BLK in loading my Ruger No.1 45-70 ( I know some of you are saying 45-70 and 450 Marlin.....WHY....an itch that needed scratching),
and had good results and accuracy. Could/Would someone be so kind to run a QL progression using CFE BLK, 20" barrel BLR, Barnes Orig.300gr, with a
COAL of 2.515. Since I don't have a case yet to measure water capacity, best guess? I have both IMR4198 and Cfe Blk on hand in limited quantities, but
plan on making a trip to local gunshops catering to reloaders, to see what is available. Finding primers here, in the boonies of northern NY, is also
very challenging, but cci250 is on hand. Thank You

DrMike · Jan 9, 2023

Welcome aboard, Balthazar.

Code:

Cartridge          : .450 Marlin
Bullet             : .458, 300, Barnes OrigFNSP.032 30612
Useable Case Capaci: 59.349 grain H2O = 3.853 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.515 inch = 63.88 mm
Barrel Length      : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm
Powder             : Hodgdon CFE BLK *C

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-10.0   91    52.74   1992    2642   33756   4112     80.6    1.243
-09.0   92    53.33   2015    2704   34865   4174     81.2    1.225
-08.0   93    53.91   2038    2766   36015   4235     81.8    1.208
-07.0   94    54.50   2061    2829   37207   4296     82.4    1.192
-06.0   95    55.08   2084    2893   38443   4356     82.9    1.174
-05.0   96    55.67   2107    2958   39725   4416     83.5    1.157
-04.0   97    56.26   2131    3024   41055   4476     84.1    1.141  ! Near Maximum !
-03.0   98    56.84   2154    3090   42435   4534     84.6    1.124  ! Near Maximum !
-02.0   99    57.43   2177    3158   43869   4593     85.2    1.108  ! Near Maximum !
-01.0  100    58.01   2201    3227   45358   4650     85.7    1.092  ! Near Maximum !
+00.0  101    58.60   2225    3296   46905   4707     86.3    1.077  ! Near Maximum !
+01.0  102    59.19   2248    3367   48514   4763     86.8    1.061  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.0  103    59.77   2272    3439   50187   4818     87.3    1.046  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.0  104    60.36   2296    3511   51928   4873     87.8    1.031  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0  105    60.94   2320    3585   53741   4926     88.3    1.017  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.0  106    61.53   2344    3659   55629   4979     88.8    1.002  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    101    58.60   2292    3498   51043   4845     89.8    1.037  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    101    58.60   2152    3084   42883   4533     82.2    1.121  ! Near Maximum !

Code:

Cartridge          : .450 Marlin
Bullet             : .458, 300, Barnes OrigFNSP.032 30612
Useable Case Capaci: 60.799 grain H2O = 3.948 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.550 inch = 64.77 mm
Barrel Length      : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm
Powder             : IMR 4198

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-10.0   96    48.33   2114    2978   34862   4500     93.8    1.178
-09.0   97    48.87   2136    3038   35885   4553     94.2    1.164
-08.0   98    49.40   2157    3100   36941   4605     94.6    1.151
-07.0   99    49.94   2179    3162   38028   4656     95.0    1.137
-06.0  100    50.48   2200    3224   39147   4706     95.4    1.123
-05.0  101    51.02   2221    3287   40298   4755     95.8    1.108
-04.0  103    51.55   2243    3351   41487   4803     96.1    1.094  ! Near Maximum !
-03.0  104    52.09   2264    3415   42712   4849     96.5    1.081  ! Near Maximum !
-02.0  105    52.63   2285    3479   43972   4894     96.8    1.067  ! Near Maximum !
-01.0  106    53.16   2307    3544   45273   4938     97.1    1.054  ! Near Maximum !
+00.0  107    53.70   2328    3610   46613   4980     97.4    1.041  ! Near Maximum !
+01.0  108    54.24   2349    3676   47996   5021     97.7    1.028  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.0  109    54.77   2370    3742   49421   5061     97.9    1.015  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.0  110    55.31   2391    3810   50891   5099     98.2    1.003  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0  111    55.85   2413    3877   52408   5135     98.4    0.991  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.0  112    56.39   2434    3945   53975   5170     98.6    0.978  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 5% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 5% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    107    53.70   2383    3783   50618   4967     99.1    1.006  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 5% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    107    53.70   2265    3416   42757   4932     94.7    1.080  ! Near Maximum !

Balthazar · Jan 9, 2023

Thank You Dr.Mike...Looks like the 4198 is the better choice and a good place to start.

TexasLife · Jan 9, 2023

WOW! Usually, h is more appropriate than imr in 450 and 45-70. Well as far as velocity goes and 1680 in several weights also. It all depends on what you're expecting out of performance.